IS HOMOEROTIC PORNOGRAPHY GOOD FOR HIGH SCHOOLERS TO SOFTEN UP YOUNG MINDS? SOME BELIEVE SO.

Back in March, 2015, local news TV WTNH-TV News 8 carried a story about David Olio, an ex-English teacher in South Windsor, Connecticut, after Olio aired a restricted content YouTube video of Allen Ginsberg reciting a poem of homoeroticism, undoubtedly a work of pornography, that Ginsberg himself wrote titled Please Master. Slate picked up the story as well as CNN.

According to a report published by the Hartfort Courant on the story, South Windor school superintendent Superintendent Kate Carter stated, "The content of the poem is wholly inappropriate for a high school classroom, and it was irresponsible for you to present this poem to children under your charge. Some of your students are minors, and you gave neither the students nor their parents any choice whether they wished to be subjected to the sexual and violent content of this poem."So the debate comes to whether or not anyone believes that it is fine that 17-year olds get exposed to homoerotic pornography. More over, should exposing minors to homoerotic pornography transcend Connecticut law?

Reading a salacious poem before a class of young, impressionable minds seems to be little more than an act of corruption and quite likely against the criminal code of the Connecticut General Assembly. The Connecticut General Assemply has defined obscenity in their penal code, Chapter 952, Title XX. Some of the key passages are these:

(1) Any material or performance is “obscene” if, (A) taken as a whole, it predominantly appeals to the prurient interest, (B) it depicts or describes in a patently offensive way a prohibited sexual act, and (C) taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political or scientific value. Predominant appeal shall be judged with reference to ordinary adults unless it appears from the character of the material or performance or the circumstances of its dissemination to be designed for some other specially susceptible audience. Whether a material or performance is obscene shall be judged by ordinary adults applying contemporary community standards. In applying contemporary community standards, the state of Connecticut is deemed to be the community.(3) “Prohibited sexual act” means erotic fondling, nude performance, sexual excitement, sado-masochistic abuse, masturbation or sexual intercourse.(10) “Material” means anything tangible which is capable of being used or adapted to arouse prurient, shameful or morbid interest, whether through the medium of reading, observation, sound or in any other manner. Undeveloped photographs, molds, printing plates, and the like, may be deemed obscene notwithstanding that processing or other acts may be required to make the obscenity patent or to disseminate it.(11) “Performance” means any play, motion picture, dance or other exhibition performed before an audience.(12) “Promote” means to manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise, produce, direct or participate in.

Connecticut criminal code has a law, which prohibits obscenity with respect to minors. Those guilty of that law are guilty of a Class D felony. Section 53a-196. Obscenity as to minors:

(a) A person is guilty of obscenity as to minors when he knowingly promotes to a minor, for monetary consideration, any material or performance which is obscene as to minors.(b) For purposes of this section, “knowingly” means having general knowledge of or reason to know or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry as to (1) the character and content of any material or performance which is reasonably susceptible of examination by such person and (2) the age of the minor.

Olio is lucky he has gotten off by merely resigning. Olio could have faced criminal prosecution.

Of course, in any criminal action, the prosecution would need to show that Ginsberg's poem lacked educational merit. While the poem might have educational merit at a university for a class on homoerotic literature, it's unlikely such a poem has educational merit for 17-year olds.

The act of ex-teacher Olio seems much like an act of someone with a political agenda masquerading as an act of education.

Comically, some are trying to frame this situation as a free speech issue. By accepting employment, Olio agreed to abide by the requirements of his job put forth by his employer.

If an adult sharing homoerotic pornography with minors is appropriate in the classroom, then it must be appropriate for any adult to do the same misdeed outside of the classroom. For the hypocrites who say the former is appropriate and the latter not, they can only fall back on an argument of politics and indoctrination.